Blakes v. Jacobson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blakes v. Jacobson

259 A.D.2d 290, 687 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2275

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 290 (Blakes v. Jacobson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blakes v. Jacobson, 259 A.D.2d 290, 687 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New [291]*291York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered May 11, 1998, which, in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination dismissing petitioner from his position as a correction officer, confirmed the determination and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the gravity of the admitted misconduct, we do not find the sanction imposed so disproportionate to the offense as to shock our sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 232-233). Petitioner’s claim, that the off-duty conduct for which he was disciplined is not actionable under department disciplinary guidelines, is waived since it was not raised in his petition or in the ensuing administrative proceedings. In any event, the claim lacks merit (see, Matter of Fox v Finnerty, 62 NY2d 796, revg 96 AD2d 905). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New [291]*291York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered May 11, 1998, which, in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination dismissing petitioner from his position as a correction officer, confirmed the determination and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the gravity of the admitted misconduct, we do not find the sanction imposed so disproportionate to the offense as to shock our sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 232-233). Petitioner’s claim, that the off-duty conduct for which he was disciplined is not actionable under department disciplinary guidelines, is waived since it was not raised in his petition or in the ensuing administrative proceedings. In any event, the claim lacks merit (see, Matter of Fox v Finnerty, 62 NY2d 796, revg 96 AD2d 905). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 290, 687 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blakes-v-jacobson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack